Derekstuart Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 I was reading about your experiment earlier on, Andy. By following a link to a link to a link etc I lost it. I will read back through the thread to find where I got up to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted September 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 28, 2015 Hi Derek, It's time to look at the moon. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Moon was a bit of a bust here, so I made this: 16.2 mm gauge, 8'6" x 10" sleepers on a 30" pitch scaled at 1:76.2 Alongside the 1:82 version Alongside the 1:87 version All three versions Aaarrrrgggg! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
28XX Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Whether by optical illusion or not, the gauge of the right hand one looks narrower. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Whether by optical illusion or not, the gauge of the right hand one looks narrower. They are all nominally 16.2 mm gauge. The one in the middle is actually closer to 16.1 mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Ignoring the apparent gauge difference for a moment, note how the right side track looks so much "bigger" than the left side, and yet in terms of scale, the right is only 14.4% larger than the left. I think that's because we don't perceive scale in one dimension. The increase in area between the left and right is actually 30.5% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Andy Any thoughts on printing a turnout base? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Andy Any thoughts on printing a turnout base? Hi John, Oh yes, plenty! I thought I better test the gauge consistency/rail installation with plain track first, and that led back to the whole question of scale. Now I'm totally confused At this point I'm tempted to build my low-level terminus entirely with bullhead track/turnouts at something very close to 1:87 and run my 00 equipment on it, but I think I better do a bit more testing first. Cheers! Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Andy no criticism meant about what you are doing about scaling the track measurements pro-rata to 16.5, but to me these thoughts must have been ongoing for years. I prefer the look of 4 mm scale sleepers and spacing but 2 mm short to compensate for the narrowing of gauge. Looking at differing sleeper spacing between SMP, C&L and Exactoscale I prefer the closer to scale of Exactoscale especially when coupled with turnout timbers. Having said that I am fully aware the way others see perspective of shapes etc may be different from mine. I am no artist what ever but sometimes by exaggerating something either in paint or in miniature it looks far better to the eye than an exact replica in miniature. Still I digress, after seeing the progress you are making with a home unit and the recent issues of Modalu (figures and point roding stools) what were deemed as niche markets can be catered for. As for turnouts I think the switch part of the sleeper base would be quite easy, its over coming the problems in the common crossing area that needs to be well thought through Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted September 28, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 28, 2015 Whether by optical illusion or not, the gauge of the right hand one looks narrower. Andy has used 8ft-6in sleepers there (34mm). For 4ft-1.5in gauge (00) the correct prototype length is 8ft (32mm). Andy knows about this and will be doing both in due course. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekstuart Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 I did. After reading comments from some of the lunatics* on this forum, the moon is the last thing I want to look at. In any case, I am not convinced it is actually made of cheese and looked nothing like Red Leicester last night. (* for the ill educated, lunatic was a term originally applied to people who acted peculiarly during the night and especially at full moons and it was believed they were being affected by the moon- LUNAr.) Apparently it was first discovered in 1620 at 16:50hrs on the 18th of February- a man named **** started rabbiting on about the gaps between horse drawn carts and wondering whether running them on larger width wheels might improve their efficiency over Medieval dirt tracks. But apparently it didn't work too well as cart wheels kept falling down potholes along the lane. It was especially pronounced where two lanes diverged from one. Hi Derek, It's time to look at the moon. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Andy. Fab stuff. It's clear that the " smaller " sleeper suits the gauge better. But again peco looks ok to , till u put 4mm stock on it. I wait with bated breath Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 As Martin mentioned, I coocked-up the sleeper length Here are the 8 foot versions. Everything else as before. Rolling-stock shots will be along any day now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Hmmmm ......... Fascinating! I'm currently into coarse-scale 0 gauge, where the odd millimetre is neither here nor there, and the sleepers ...... Sheesh! They would cause apoplexy here. But, I am a great fan of ancient model railway magazines, and this discussion does, very strongly remind me of the debates that raged around 0 gauge c1910, and consumed many column-miles during the 1930s, when people were trying to work out the best way of building to a scale roughly half of whatever they had chosen to call 0 scale. The British Minister of War Production during WW2 was a mad-keen railway modeller, and he even found time to write a long letter about the topic to one of the magazines, right in the middle of the War! The great pity is that a very early form of 00 (as opposed to H0) was to 19mm gauge, and that then got forgotten. The 0.17mm difference from P4 would, almost literally, involve splitting hairs. The chap to blame for all this is, of course, none other than one of our hobby's two founding fathers: Henry Greenly. Anyway, enough historical musing. Enjoy it! Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Andy , great stuff. Can you remind me where you plan to take all this stuff. Is there a master plan ? Regards Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Andy , great stuff. Can you remind me where you plan to take all this stuff. Is there a master plan ? Regards Dave Hi Dave, To some extent there is no plan. This is probably more research than anything. It seems I have the capability of making my track any old way I want to. I know the gauge will be 16.2 mm. At this point I'm trying to decide how to scale the other bits to give me the greatest satisfaction. Because it's all rather subjective, there is no "right" answer. Cheers! Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 I took some rolling-stock shots, but I'll have to take them again later. I assumed I'd be able to tell which was which just by looking at them, so I didn't take any notes. Unfortunately, I'm not certain which is which just by looking at them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 The great pity is that a very early form of 00 (as opposed to H0) was to 19mm gauge, and that then got forgotten. The 0.17mm difference from P4 would, almost literally, involve splitting hairs. Kevin There was for a while an OO following on 19mm track in the US, I believe it actually had commercial support. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 I know which one I like the the look of best on its own. Now on to see what it looks like with something on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junctionmad Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 To me the left one is the best. But I can't tell till I see rolling stock Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 29, 2015 Author Share Posted September 29, 2015 Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 29, 2015 Author Share Posted September 29, 2015 Actually, I quite like all of them It's a bit like when you go to the optician for new specs and he says "This one, or this one?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightbe Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Well, my suspicions were reaffirmed. Dare I say which looks best to me? Quentin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 JS Indeed, 19mm gauge at 4mm/ft scale was, for a few years, USA 00, and it did have trade support. In the UK I think it only ever had amateur support (barring a few "commissioned builds") and one of the big, influential clubs, used it - I'd need to delve into old tomes to check, but I think it might have been Wimbledon MRC, which was a hothouse of Young Turks, all dead-keen on super-fidelity, during the 1930s. Andy For what it's worth, I think 'A' looks best of the three. And, I think that you are on a very painful road if you are bent on inventing a new scale, as opposed to simply attempting to get commercial 00 to look and run better by improving the track. And, and, you might want to delve into the history of Trix in the UK, and Fleischmann's Few UK models; I think that both ended-up in the same "no man's land" that you are heading for, somewhere between 4mm/ft and 3.5mm/ft. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted September 29, 2015 Author Share Posted September 29, 2015 and, Exhibit D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.